So why did you write about stomach pain?

That's amazing, that you can write something and not even realise...I mean I could understand if it was in draft, but is cut...sometimes the Sherlock team can't remember if they actually filmed a scene before it was cut......

To be fair, the BBC Sherlock team have never said that somebody's interpretation isn't vaild, they have just said that they have not written it that way.
For me, intention is everything.
Unless we really believe the characters can step out of our TVs and live a life of their own.
 

Last edited by besleybean (January 3, 2015 9:19 pm)

I know from what the Sherlock team say, they're often not certain how they're going to get to a point...they have it planned out series ahead...but then they add things, cut things etc.
I also think it's different if you're creating something, totally original, all your own and from scratch.
BBC Sherlock follow the template of The Canon.

Last edited by besleybean (January 3, 2015 9:52 pm)

Of course...though there can be different aspects of lighting etc...
We also have to guard against fishing for things we merely want to see.

Yeah, I agree, our experiences will colour how we perceive pieces of art, whether as a creator or as a consumer. So sometimes a consumer sees something different than the creator intended, I get that. Sometimes, the consumer has an idea that was cleverer or more meaningful than the original intention, and of course a creator wouldn't protest if something means something personally to someone, even though it doesn't mean the same to him/her. I get that too. 

What I don't get is the philosophy that the creator's intention doesn't matter. At least not more than anyone else's. If anyone could explain that to me? I'm sure it has some methodological advantages for reviewers, so that they focus on the art and not on the artist, but that's method and not philosophy. I simply cannot see art, any type of art, as anything other than a form of communication, and the creator plays the most important role in that. 

For example when I read a book, a Stephen King, I'm aware that this is King on every page, and that there might be a monster lurking somewhere. With Rowling, it got kinda easy to predict who she might kill next. When I watch Sherlock, I'm aware of the writers and their fondness of shock twists and breaking the fourth wall. Even within Sherlock, I've come to expect nonlinear stuff from Steven, but not from Mark. You get to learn a certain writer's style and learning what the writer's attitude is, also helps with understanding that style. The writer is always in the back of my head, that's why I'm glad that Moftiss give so many interviews. 

silverblaze wrote:

Yeah, I agree, our experiences will colour how we perceive pieces of art, whether as a creator or as a consumer. So sometimes a consumer sees something different than the creator intended, I get that. Sometimes, the consumer has an idea that was cleverer or more meaningful than the original intention, and of course a creator wouldn't protest if something means something personally to someone, even though it doesn't mean the same to him/her. I get that too. 

What I don't get is the philosophy that the creator's intention doesn't matter. At least not more than anyone else's. If anyone could explain that to me? I'm sure it has some methodological advantages for reviewers, so that they focus on the art and not on the artist, but that's method and not philosophy. I simply cannot see art, any type of art, as anything other than a form of communication, and the creator plays the most important role in that. 

For example when I read a book, a Stephen King, I'm aware that this is King on every page, and that there might be a monster lurking somewhere. With Rowling, it got kinda easy to predict who she might kill next. When I watch Sherlock, I'm aware of the writers and their fondness of shock twists and breaking the fourth wall. Even within Sherlock, I've come to expect nonlinear stuff from Steven, but not from Mark. You get to learn a certain writer's style and learning what the writer's attitude is, also helps with understanding that style. The writer is always in the back of my head, that's why I'm glad that Moftiss give so many interviews. 

Yes, this is how I view it as well, and I am honestly unable to understand that someone would find the creator's intent not more true than any interpretation from the audience.

If I were to write a book about, say, the loneliness of an outsider, that would be The meaning of the book. If someone then told me it was about how standing alone in the world is the best you can do, I would say no - it isn't. It is actually wrong. 

Of course, we are all free to interpret whatever we want, and we always do it based on who we are. The audience can get their own personal experience from art that was never the intention of the creator, and that is an awesome thing about art. But there is a giant leap from having that personal experience to claiming it to be just as true as the creator's intention. To me, that is bordering on rude - if I were a writer, I would find it rude if someone said that to me.

The thread starter knew what he did, and there is more and more evidence that supports it. So don't take it personally.

See? You act like you have to defend them. Which is funny because we adore the team for their brilliance. *shrug*

Yes, they are brilliant. At pretty much everything, writing, directing, art direction, lighting, acting, even at telling us lies whenever they open their mouths. And that's totally fine with me. The moment you start understanding that you can't believe a lot of the things they're saying, you can decide with each interview, each Q&A, each single sentence they say on a red carpet whether or not you believe them. And then you can just lean back and watch the show, new episodes and old episodes, and try to bring in line what they said with what you see on screen. Pretty awesome, if you ask me.